The Missing Evidence II - New Ripper Documentary - Aug 2024

[Elamarna]

The position is biased and misleading. The kneeling pose is biased and misleading. The direction faced is biased and misleading. The time given is biased and misleading.

No surprise that Christer blanked you. I don't recall him ever directly dealing with evidence that undermined his theory.

It also portrays Paul walking along the southern side of Bucks Row, meaning that he crosses ( no pun intended) to the south side, coming from Bath Street, north of Bucks Rows , before he would then cross over again to the north of Bucks Row when he enters Bakers Row. This would appear to be pure invention on the part of the documentary.

I was told that this was because when the filming was done, the northern pavement was closed for repairs, but this was an animation, so that is unconvincing.

When I asked about Lechmere crouching over the body, I was told it's to represent what might have happened, that the commentary made It clear that it was only a possibility.
The exchange is somewhere on here, but looking for it could be tedious Fiver.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Didn't Cross stand up and go to the middle of the street when he saw Paul coming?

That's what they want people to believe.
Trouble of course is, it's pure invention.

Steve

[Geddy2112]

I was told that this was because when the filming was done, the northern pavement was closed for repairs, but this was an animation, so that is unconvincing.
When I asked about Lechmere crouching over the body, I was told it's to represent what might have happened, that the commentary made It clear that it was only a possibility.

From the documentary -

Lechmere says he was never alone with the body but Lechmere would have arrived at the murder site at 3:37am, long before Paul turned into the street at 3:45am.

This is what is spoken when the scene of Lechmere leaning over the body is shown. That does not seem as the documentary is making it clear that it was just a possibility. It seems outright they wish to and have done, shown Lechmere poised over the body to make him look more guilty.



They even show Lechmere still over the body as Paul is the '40 yards' away which is inconsistent with the 'evidence.' Tis a sham ya honour.. a fabrication..

[Elamarna]

From the documentary -



This is what is spoken when the scene of Lechmere leaning over the body is shown. That does not seem as the documentary is making it clear that it was just a possibility. It seems outright they wish to and have done, shown Lechmere poised over the body to make him look more guilty.



They even show Lechmere still over the body as Paul is the '40 yards' away which is inconsistent with the 'evidence.' Tis a sham ya honour.. a fabrication..

Indeed, it does appear to intentionally mislead.

Steve

[Geddy2112]

Indeed, it does appear to intentionally mislead.

I wonder what Scobie would have said if he'd been given that Inside Bucks Row rag to read first... wonder if his conclusions would have been different

[Fiver]

Didn't Cross stand up and go to the middle of the street when he saw Paul coming?

Not according to Robert Paul.

"He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning and as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road." - Robert Paul, 18 September 1888 Times.

[Fiver]

They even show Lechmere still over the body as Paul is the '40 yards' away which is inconsistent with the 'evidence.' Tis a sham ya honour.. a fabrication..

They even put Paul on the South side of the street, which is also inconsistent with the evidence.

And the voiceover is lying.

Lechmere did not say that he was never alone with the body.
We don't know the precise time Lechmere arrived at the murder site.
We have three witnesses, all policemen, who say that Robert Paul was several minutes walk away from the murder scene by 3:45am.

[Geddy2112]

Then we have this gem from the cockumentary.....

'Medical examiner estimated she was killed at around 4:30am, again Lechmere would have been passing close to the murder site within minutes of her death. Three killings occurring on his early morning route to work.'

So since Lechmere left home on a morning at 3:30am (documentaries version not mine) and he started work at 4:00am the documentary has actually given Lechmere an alibi. You just can't make it up. But you still have folk making comments that they are convinced after watching it Lechmere is the killer... where is that quoate again about the internet and village idiots...

[Geddy2112]

Not sure if anyone here has seen this over on Facebook... and apologies if this is not 'allowed.' A pertinent part to a 'conversation' (more like a train wreck) I'm indulging with Christer...

‘You speak of a photo of an animation and ask why I did not challenge it.
A) I can see no photo, and
B) I did not make the docu and was not shown in before it aired, so how could I challenge it?

I was asking him about the photo I posted here, the screen grab of the documentary and Scobie's comments as I suggested he should have checked them before airing to make sure they were 'credible.' Answer a) - fair enough but the picture is there. Answer b) in the documentary it shows Christer watching the documentary - Scobie's conclusions. However he says he did not see it before it was aired... what?

I am making the guess that you are talking about the animation where Lechmere kneels by the body, but if that is so, how do you know that it is "completely inaccurate"? Were you there? Did you see what Lechmere did? Or are you just accepting it as that he never knelt by the side of Nichols? You see, he either did or he did not - and the thing is, if he did, then the depiction is spot on.’

Of course Christer was there so he knows...

This man is infuriating. I've tried reasoning with him, I've watched the documentary, I've read the threads. I've not read his book yet but I'm inclined not to and the more I read his words the more and more I feel how biased, misleading, inaccurate his theory is. He is rude, he is arrogant, stubborn and blinkered and I'm fairly convinced that even though he is obviously an educated, multilingual speaker he has a great deal of trouble reading and understanding English.

[Geddy2112]

Sorry if I'm bleating on and sounding like a broken record, his latest offering why does he bother? Book sales down?

If there is one favourite line among the naysayers when it comes to the Lechmere theory, then it is this one: "He found Nichols, that is all there is to it." It comes back again and again and again and ... So I am thinking that we need to take a closer look at this claim, and with any luck, we will not have to hear it any more in the future. To begin with: Finding a body is not in any way coupled to guilt. Which is of course why so many naysayers are so very fond of that phrase; it does not in any way indicate guilt, and so they (the Lechmereians) can have it! But here is the rub - we don´t want it. Because we do not think that Lechmere found the body at all. And there is zero corroboration for the claim that he did. What there IS corroboration for and what I use to describe it, is not that he found the body. It is that he WAS FOUND by the body. There is where corroboration (from Paul) lies, nowhere else. The phrase "he found the body" predisposes that there must have been a body on the ground to find before Lechmere walked onto it, and if this was so, the carman was innocent. And in all likelihood, he was not. That is the first alteration I am proposing. The next one is that when we speak of how Lechmere was found by the body, we should always remember to add that at this stage, the victim was still bleeding and breathing. Because before we add these matters, the full extent of why Lechmere becomes a suspect just by way of being found by the body, is not revealed. And we all want the full picture, don´t we? So there we are: He was found next to the body, and the body was at this stage still bleeding and breathing.

I don't think I have the energy to dissect that for all the times that has been 'ripped' apart... again apologies.

[jmenges]

Christer is only temporarily banned from the boards.
Until he returns and can re-engage, it’s not fair to repost and argue with comments he’s making elsewhere.

JM

[Paddy Goose]

Christer found his own Hutch. With a big assist from Ed. It's that simple.

It all began as a grudge match between Christer (Fisherman) and Ben Holme (Ben) right here on Casebook. When I first joined the two were locked in a debate on a Stride thread arguing about a cutaway jacket. Neither would back down. It got rather heated. Shortly Fish shows up on, of all places, the George Hutchinson Suspect threads, arguing against, of all people, Ben. You see, Ben was a devoted Hutchinsonian. Their feud went on it seems like forever.

In the meantime Ed started posting as Lechmere and apparently Christer got an 'aha' moment. He could go with the Lechmere suspect thing and get one up on Ben. His book and TV show are simply a continuation of his grudge match with Ben. It's that simple.

And here's the thing, I think Christer is a nice guy. And he is very knowledgeable. Same for Ben. And Bob Hinton, originator of the Hutch theory who used to post here, too. All good peeps.

Geddy, welcome to Casebook. Best to you.

[rjpalmer]

You see, Ben was a devoted Hutchinsonian. Their feud went on it seems like forever.

I'm probably repeating myself, but the Lechmere and Hutchinson theories remind me of the old joke about the jogger who lost his car keys somewhere in the vastness of Central Park at night.

A cop finds him looking frantically for the keys under the nearest lamp post--"because that's where the light is."

Same goes for the Robert Mann, James Hardiman, and Joe Barnett theories.

[Geddy2112]

Christer is only temporarily banned from the boards.
Until he returns and can re-engage, it’s not fair to repost and argue with comments he’s making elsewhere.

Please feel free to delete my post then as personally I find it no different than quoting Scobie from the documentary or a policeman from a newspaper cutting etc. All of which happens a great deal around here. Hope you can see that reasoning, thank you. However if it's against the rules please get rid. Cheers.

[jmenges]

I said it was unfair.
I didn’t say it was against the rules.

JM